India’s National Scripture?

India’s National Scripture?

Israel Selvanayagam

India’s External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, addressing a crowd with some passion and with claims of personal discovery, has suggested we ‘make the Gita (our) national scripture’ (The Hindu, 8 December 2014, 12). Interestingly, a couple of years ago (2011-12), in the heat of a controversy over the Russian translation of the Bhagavad Gita, one of her predecessors, S.M. Krishna, declared that the Gita was India’s national book! Within scholarly and interreligious circles, this was regarded as an insensitive declaration, as a specifically Vaishnava scripture such as the Gita cannot represent even the multi-scriptural and multi-traditional Hindu community, leave alone the non-Hindu communities.

The success of the Vishva Hindu Parishad’s popular programme aiming to ensure every Hindu home has a copy of the Gita should be evaluated through an empirical study. Similar questionable events have taken place in politically higher places. At the beginning of September (2014), during his visit to Japan, Prime Minister Narendra Modi presented two copies of the Gita to the Japanese government, saying that there could be no greater gift from India. He did the same when he met the US President at the end of the month. The peculiar tolerance of the Indian religious community was evident as there was no hue and cry about such events.

The Bhagavad Gita is part of the great epic Mahabharata which in traditional classification of Hindu scriptures falls under ‘secondary scripture’. By reason of its intrinsic value it was elevated  to the status of ‘primary scripture’. Thus as early as the first millennium CE and subsequently it has been regarded as one of the three primary sources of Vedanta, one of the ‘visionary schools’ of India’s ancient past, the other two being the Upanishads and the Vedanta/Brahma Sutras. However, like (and even more than) other scriptures the Gita was subjected to conflicting interpretations by the classical Vedantins – Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva. Their and more later Vedantins’ positions continue to be studied.

The Gita assumed a new significance in the modern period. Towards the end of the nineteenth century Edwin Arnold, a British civil officer, translated it into English. When M.K. Gandhi read it he was excited about the existence of such a text and translated it into Gujarati. It gave him a new confidence about his Vaishnava heritage and later inspired his spiritual strength to participate in the national movement for freedom. Also it appeared to him to be Hinduism’s one credible scripture, which he projected  over against foreign religious traditions with their boasting claim of one scripture.

However, the Gita was not as simple and straightforward as Gandhi wanted it to be. For example, with reference to the virtue of non-injury (ahimsa) occurring four times in passing, Gandhi claimed the ideal of non-violence was  the Gita’s quintessence, and based his life-strategy on this moral principle.  But when soon after independence part of Kashmir was occupied by certain tribes from Pakistan side, he had to drift into what we may call a less clear-cut ‘situation ethics’ when he condoned the Indian government sending the army to Kashmir. There was also the counter-interpretation of his senior colleague B.G. Tilak that the central message of the Gita was to fight and kill in order to restore the ancient dharma. It is recognized as one of the greatest ironies of scriptural interpretation that someone who was inspired by Tilak’s interpretation assassinated Gandhi!

No doubt, no other Hindu scripture has been translated into several languages and extensively studied as the Gita. However, the puzzle of the controversies seen in the interpretations of the Gita is evident when one studies  a variety of commentaries and scholarly works. For many it has a spiritual message of integral yoga while for a few it emphasizes murder with impunity.  For the Vedantins  the Gita is a primary resource but they interpreted its verses in order to suit their own  metaphysical positions. More objective observations have, however, been made by modern thinkers, scholars and philosophers. Most remarkably, S. Radhakrishnan unusually pointed out the historical reality in the background of the Gita. (That the Gita has completed 5151years –the celebration in which Sushma gave her address – is grossly misleading!).  Accordingly, following the decline of the Vedic tradition of sacrifice (due to the impact of the renouncers’ movement and political upheavals around the sixth century BCE), even though there was Hindu revival in the following period, the emerging of regional traditions such as the Bhagavata resulted in an explosive situation full of conflicting claims. The popular divine-hero Krishna was readily available at hand to become a rallying centre of different traditions and views. Influenced by the interpretation of Swami Vivekananda, Radhakrishnan offered a theological scheme which can accommodate the lowest forms of religious traditions, graded as to their lower or higher status, and culminating in the highest form which for him is the advaita experience of oneness with the supreme reality. It is a pity that politicians while preaching religion appear to be unaware of the massive historical-textual-philosophical studies of texts like the Gita that fill in many racks of libraries.

Those who read the Gita with new eyes, recognizing historical realities, will find in it a struggle to synthesize different strands of religious thought of its time. Does it really synthesize all the strands? Can it provide a framework for the distinctive religious visions and traditions of all the religious communities of India? How can the reaffirmation of the Vedic ritual as indispensable at all times and all stages of life as well as of the creation of four castes be  synthesized with the transcendence of bhakti? Obviously much depends on what we mean by synthesis. But at the same time, there are some striking insights in the Gita which can have an appeal to all engaging readers. The profoundest of them seems to be that ‘having fixed one’s mind on God one has to do one’s duty without worrying about the rewards.’ Here meditative mind-control (jnana-yoga), concentration on God (bhakti) and action (karma) are brought together to form a harmonious commitment.

The above insight is fascinating to anyone who takes religious life or spirituality seriously. It may call for a new seriousness and commitment to work for ‘cleaning India’ in all spheres as we struggle with some burning issues of ‘national shame’. Sushma’s claim that the Gita has answers to everybody’s problems.’  But can it be tested against these challenges by groups of different faiths and no faith with a spirit of dialogue characterized by commitment and openness. Her exhortation that ‘Everyone should read two slokas of Gita every day’ places her in the line of an ardent religious teacher, while we have overwhelming number of religious teachers.

 Proposing one text like the Gita as India’s national book or scripture is not only insensitive but unfortunately also exposes ignorance. We are not in a position to know the percentage of people in this country for whom the Gita actually scripture because our census does not count the population with reference to the particular tradition/sect to which individuals belong. We hear from teachers of the Krishna/Vishnu cult again and again that Siva is inferior to Vishnu while for the Saivites it is the other way round. The puranic stories of the conflict between Vishnu and Siva are repeatedly referred to in the bhakti texts of these sects. Further, Vishnu takes avatars but Siva does not as it would involve the Supreme having to go through the process of karma-samsara. In fact one wishes that the Saiva bhaktas would come forward to make a response to Sushma Swaraj unless they identify with her for Hindu political solidarity. It may be profitable to study the commentary on Gita of Abinav Gupta (960 – 1050), a prominent theologian of Kashmir Saivism, entitled ‘Gitartha Samgraha’.

 It is understandable that in reaction to Swaraj’s declaration of the Gita as India’s national scripture with the ever ready support of the Hindutva ranks, many leaders and thinkers reminded her of the secular fabric of the nation. They pointed out that the Indian Constitution is our scripture. What is made most clear is that India’s is a constitutional nationalism and the preamble of the constitution provides the finest vision and statement of our common identity, shared values and collective aspiration. As it stands now, it is certain that any scripture that does not conform to it will lose its validity. At the same time, coincidently, some of the Tamil texts are introduced and celebrated in northern India, most prominently Thirukural (Sacred Couplets) of the sage Thiruvalluvar, known as the Tamil Veda, already translated in several languages. Arguably, this text arose around the same time as the Gita (around the turn of the Christian era) and its message of a secular and moral nature, if studied will prove to be appealing to all people not only of India but also of the whole world.